[Closed] One for the photography experts

Why?

If you need to sell, look on Ebay at sold prices.

I would keep it if I could though - why get rid of something that may still be of use?

I'm here, don't worry, the expert's in!

Oh what's that - Canon? Sorry, can't help 🙂

With regards lenses in general though, you have to decide if you like it. If you like what it offers, keep it, otherwise not. Lenses just help you get shots. If you find you're never zooming in to 200mm then there's no point in having it.

In general super zooms are a compromise, so you'll get better image quality with a 18-55. But you wont' be able to zoom in as much 🙂

Why?

Why? I've got an 18-200 lens and it is brilliant if you want to travel light. It's not the sharpest lens you can buy and it suffers a bit from chromatic aberration, but it is still a good lens. I've had DPSs in magazines shot with that lens.

Unless you're skint and need the money, but from memory I think they go for significantly less than £200 on ebay

Why?

It's not the sharpest lens you can buy and it suffers a bit from chromatic aberration

Answered your own question 🙂

Btw I *think* that's the lens my mate uses and he wants to get shot because he doesn't like the bokeh...

thanks everyone, if its worth less than £200 I'll keep it

Answered your own question

Not really. hitman didn't say why [b]he [/b]was thinking of selling it, Hence my question [b]why?[/b]

I just mentioned a couple of weaknesses of that lens to prompt him. I thought it might be helpful in case he's not the sort of person that thinks a lot about lenses.

I also think that a lot of people worry unnecessarily about things like sharpness as a technical issue as defined by "pixel peepers" (because there is a lot of discussion of these things on forums), when they would be better off thinking about composition, quality of light, mood and various other non-specific non-technical things and worrying less about the kit. I'm not sure that Nikon make any "bad" lenses.

From the reviews I've seen, isn't the Canon 18-55 a bit cak, even by kit lens standards?
I've not used it, just regurgitating stuff I've read.

I'd stick with what you've got.

What I've seen of the Canon kit lens it doesn't look too bad for the money, but isn't the OP talking about Nikon or some other minor manufacturer?

i'm always stunned by the difference between my 18-200 and old 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D which came on my original film slr

it doesn't mean i'd swap back though, the super zoom is just too versatile for me to care enough

You don't buy an 11x zoom if you're looking for great bokeh, you buy it for versatility.
They go for significantly more than £200 on ebay.
Sure, there's lots of compromises made in its design in order to get the zoom range, but [b]as a one lens solution[/b] it's going to be better for most people than relying on the 18-55. Distortion is simply corrected in software (DXo or Lightroom).

Not really. hitman didn't say why he was thinking of selling it, Hence my question why?

I just mentioned a couple of weaknesses of that lens to prompt him. I thought it might be helpful in case he's not the sort of person that thinks a lot about lenses.

I also think that a lot of people worry unnecessarily about things like sharpness as a technical issue as defined by "pixel peepers" (because there is a lot of discussion of these things on forums), when they would be better off thinking about composition, quality of light, mood and various other non-specific non-technical things and worrying less about the kit. I'm not sure that Nikon make any "bad" lenses

Hence my question why?

Hey! It was my question!

But sorry, should have been more explicit: Why would you move from an 18-200mm lens to an 18-55mm lens? The difference in quality is likely to be minimal, neither is a pro-level lens (and even if it were, I'm not sure that I'd be able to tell the difference...) The only real advantage I can see is the slight weight saving, but when you're carting around a DSLR anyhow it doesn't seem important enough to matter, and having that extra bit of zoom may make the difference between getting the shot you want or not.

Hitman - what are you using your kit mostly for?

I dont think there is anything wrong with your combo as it is, tbh.

Saying that, I use a D90 with 18-105vr & 70-300vr I am still get tempted to go back to primes sometimes 😉

The price of their 35mm f1.8, 50mm F1.8 look very tempting 😉

Cross posts, the weight is the reason!

I'd get a 50mm and keep the 18-200, that way you get the best of both worlds.

Actually, sorry about my bad memory. vinnyeh is right that they do go for more than I thought - I've just had a look on ebay and they go for around £300+

50mm primes are IMHO pointless as a single lens solution.

Fair enough you might get more involved in framing your pictures but then you are far more likely to miss the shot you want because you didn't have time/zoom.

depends what you take pics of really, my 50mm prime is great for pics of flowers etc but i'd not take it on a cycling trip or a walk as i'd be seriously restricted.

Your D40 has a DX sensor which is smaller than full frame, so any lens is effectively a bit longer than it would be on a full frame (film) camera. So if you want to shoot "normal" photos then you might prefer a 35 mm lens rather than a 50.

Try locking your zoom (with a bit of duct tape) at either of those focal lengths and see what you get.

If you're not using the zoom then there's no point in having the compromise (and it is a compromise). Sharpness - well whatever, but CA would worry me more. It always annoys me and if you are taking say, biking pics, then it could come up a lot.

The kit lens is made in that focal length range for a reason.